News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.9K     0 

It’s interesting how in the past year Austrian and Brussels airlines both dropped Toronto for Montreal and air canada picked up the slack. Swiss air also flys to yul but not yyz. Basically the European airlines choose yul over yyz.
Why is that?
Brussels Airlines still flies out of YYZ, so no need to generalize
 
It’s interesting how in the past year Austrian and Brussels airlines both dropped Toronto for Montreal and air canada picked up the slack. Swiss air also flys to yul but not yyz. Basically the European airlines choose yul over yyz.
Why is that?
Codeshare agreements most likely, plus the fact that AC has been receiving more 787s and they are stationed at YYZ. It allows the Lufthansa group airlines to experiment with other destinations in Canada using smaller planes, and it allows AC to service established routes with larger aircraft. YUL is also a huge A330 maintenance base so it would explain why Swiss and Brussels airlines are choosing to fly there.
 
GTAA hasn't undertaken a significant expansion program in awhile. I haven't gone through the financials, but do you see their fees coming down? Or are they keeping them at the same level (the carriers are not going away) as a means to help finance a future expansion? I assume then that YUL and YVR debt loads will increase as a result of their expansions, possibly raising their landing fees to something comparable with YYZ. Also, why does the master plan indicate that an air side expansion is not on the horizon, when the airport is so slot restricted? I presume the business case doesn't justify the expense - though that is counterintuitive to me as I would have thought that greater passenger growth and more flights would motivate an air side expansion.

The most recent annual report states that airport fees have been held constant, or lowered over the past 11 years. Though I am still going through to try and verify that. However, given that the bulk of the last major expansion pretty much ended in 2007 with the opening of the hammerhead at the end of Pier F. Since then there has been only incremental upgrades, so it's reasonable to think that fees would be held constant.
 
I did not know LH owns Brussels Swiss and Austrian airlines

All the big European airlines are groups now. The International Airlines Group (IAF) owns British Airways, Iberian and Aer Lingus. AFKL owns Air France, KLM and 30% of Virgin Atlantic. Lufthansa Group owns Lufthansa, Austrian, Swiss and has a partnership with LOT Polish.

And each of these groups is a founding member of one of the three major airline alliances. IAG airlines are part of Oneworld. AFKL airlines are member of SkyTeam. And Lufthansa Group carriers are part of Star Alliance.

With Air Canada as part of Star Alliance and YYZ being its largest hub, there's a focus to more of Star Alliance's flights at YYZ moving to AC metal, while other Star Alliance carriers target other cities in Canada.
 
I haven't gone through the financials, but do you see their fees coming down?

No.

Or are they keeping them at the same level (the carriers are not going away) as a means to help finance a future expansion?

Mostly likely. That $11 billion transit hub and check-in hall needs funding.

I assume then that YUL and YVR debt loads will increase as a result of their expansions, possibly raising their landing fees to something comparable with YYZ.

Every major airport is in the same situation as YYZ thanks to federal airport rents. It's effectively a hidden tax on aviation in the country.

Also, why does the master plan indicate that an air side expansion is not on the horizon, when the airport is so slot restricted? I presume the business case doesn't justify the expense - though that is counterintuitive to me as I would have thought that greater passenger growth and more flights would motivate an air side expansion.

Not sure if the plan just hasn't been updated yet. I could see it as simply an effort at renewal; replacing some old facilities, improving the layout to increase efficiency, or to accomodate a different mix of traffic (more widebodies and larger narrowbodies going forward), etc. As it stands, getting to a gate after you land can still take a while sometimes. So I'm sure there's some validity in investing in airside development.
 
Apparently the Liberals were/are? considering privatizing the major airports. If that happens and Pearson gets loaded up with several billion dollars worth of debt, good luck to dreams of the transit hub and nicer terminals. As it stands, advancing their transit terminal plan will require some federal help. Imagine swapping rent relief for debt.

How much total debt does YYZ have? Is there a reference airport around the world that is privately run
 

2018
Revenue: $1.47B
Operating Expenses: $1.0B
Total Expenses: $1.35B (includes interest and other debt financing fees)
Net Debt: $6B
Total Liabilities: $6.8B (debt + accounts payable, security deposits, etc.)
Total Assets: $6.4B
hmm only $6B in debt... doesnt look that bad if they can pay it off over the next 10-15 years and probably negotiate to forgive some of it during the transition to private.
 
hmm only $6B in debt... doesnt look that bad if they can pay it off over the next 10-15 years and probably negotiate to forgive some of it during the transition to private.

I don't think they have any intention of paying it off. In 2006 after T1 opened they had something like $7B debt.

Edit: $7.6B in total Liabilities in 2007 (page 54). Largely the new T1 construction.

 
Last edited:
hmm only $6B in debt... doesnt look that bad if they can pay it off over the next 10-15 years and probably negotiate to forgive some of it during the transition to private.

At the current rate, it would take over a half century to pay off the existing $6.8 billion in debt. And privatization isn't free. The whole goal is to sell the aiport so the government gets money to build new infrastructure. So add several billion more to that existing $6.8 billion. Possibly even a doubling of debt (article says $5-7 billion for the sale of TPIA). But they'd no longer be paying rent to the feds, so they'd have another $180 million annually at their disposal. But with $300 million annually to pay down $14 billion in debt and the interest of that extra $7 billion, there will be no fiscal room at all to improve the airport and do grand projects like the transit hub.
 

Back
Top